exporectomy

So your concern is that Valve recommends you don't do it yourself and is nothing to do with the product itself?

What do you mean by non-removable battery? The video shows how to unplug it. I'm sure it can be replaced by any normal repairman or hobbyist. Aftermarket batteries will also surely be available like they are for other popular devices.

If they're covert and only members of the group using them know what they mean, then why fight it? Seems like a helpful way to communicate about things that others might not like to hear. The paper you linked said that too - "Such signals may allow coordination and enhanced cooperation while also avoiding the alienation or hostile reactions of individuals with different preferences.".

This happens all the time in cartoons that appeal to children but also contain subtle adult jokes so everyone can enjoy them on different levels.

Stats or it didn't happen. That kind of seemingly incredible coincidence can sometimes just be the mind playing tricks on people who are unaware of how many ways a similar result could have occurred by chance.

I didn't attempt to answer your point directly because others have already done a better job of it. Excuse me for making it sound like "You're wrong but I can't explain why".

But I think most people know what those words are so somehow the idea is shared very well. Most taboos are probably like this - they're actually well known but talking about them and doing them is discouraged.

I wonder about believing you're wrong about any specific knowledge you have. That's pretty hard. Others can try to communicate it to you but your brain tries to find ways to reject that information.

Yep. It's misguided attempts to recycle plastic that cause a lot of the environmental contamination in the west.

I think you're stuck between the anti-plastic and anti-GHG ideologies. This reminds me of when anti-nuclear collided with anti-GHG. Not everything has a single obvious right answer. There are always tradeoffs. In this particular case, the environmental problems are easily solved by using landfills that don't release anything into the environment.

Having said that, plastic production itself is a far bigger GHG emitter than burning it. Plastic product production emits 1.5 Gt of CO2e per year while global CO2 emissions are 35 Gt [1]. That's 4% of global emissions coming from plastic production. Incineration is hardly anything in comparison.

[1] https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1038/s41558-019-0459-z

Yep. I investigated Stripe once but you had to use an API. Paypal is just copy and paste code into your HTML page.

No but I bet some people are turned away because of Paypal. I use it and customers occasionally inquire "Do you accept credit cards because we don't have a Paypal account?". It's aggravating that they make the credit card option hard to find compared to the shitty Paypal account login.

"[...] "Scalpers perform a social service" [...] absurd point".

Do you mean that you think it's absurd but you don't disagree that scalpers perform a social service?

I think you're using the word "intelligence" to mean "respectable" or something else that isn't intelligence at all. Perhaps similar to how people use "stupid" to mean something that hurts them - "The stupid fly won't let me kill it!".

If you look up what collectivism means, I think that entire conversation will become clear to you.

I agree about the "just". You're right. It's about the same level of misleading as "scientific fact". People used to use "just a theory" to discredit relativity or evolution, exploiting the fact that the alternative terms like laws of physics or truth sounded stronger even though they weren't.

I still think it's harmful to general understanding to put any scientific knowledge on a pedestal of being unchallengeable fact. How can we know where we might be wrong? The earth is round, is it? What if that's just a slice of it in 3 dimensions and it's actually some other higher dimensional shape? Future people might laugh at our simplistic belief based on only seeing a little part of it - similar to ancients believing the Earth was flat because it was flat as far as they could see.

The horrible part is not the believing, but the condemning of non-believers.

I don't believe they're the future, nor do I really understand them much at all. I'm just critical of the way people say "I don't understand them, therefore they're stupid". There may be valid reasons why NFTs are terrible but these people are not expressing those reasons. They're expressing reasons that a quick skim through any popular HN NFT comments page, such as this one, would answer.

It is just a theory. There's no such thing as "scientific fact". That's simply not what science is capable of, and you're showing you're anti-science by promoting those ideas.

I really thought it was some attempt to worsen the apparent effects of climate change and got confused when it started talking about house piles sinking on their own in thawing permafrost, not being somehow deliberately sabotaged or whatever the scramble was doing.

You don't need to own the card to do that. Just google image search and look at your screen. If you like cardboard cards, print one on cardboard.

What? Surely not. Someone else still owns the copyright of baseball cards, don't they? Or are baseball cards special in that they come with a kind of copyright ownership when they're sold? I doubt that.

A lot of people on here are aggressively expressing skepticism of NFTs while only giving simple easily refutable reasons. It seems like they're trying hard not to understand. That's what happens when people have cognitive dissonance. Perhaps they've spent their whole life building a slightly incorrect mental model of how society works and NFTs don't fit that model. It's easier to deny the value of NFTs than to change their mental model. The denial has to be aggressive because it's so emotionally dangerous to let yourself lose your grip on your existing beliefs. That kind of hysteresis or stickiness of beliefs is a good thing because it allows us to build elaborate consistent useful models of the world without upending it at every random new idea. But it also means old set-in-their-ways people aren't good at adopting cutting edge ideas.

You disagree but with no reasons. You should consider why you hold that belief.

Big difference between science and popular emotion-fueled mischaracterizations of science.

Disengagement rate.

Yes, that's why it's a big problem. They also often make the wrong decision and leave people screwed over. Just look at all the complaints from Ebay sellers who got ripped off by Ebay siding with the fraudulent customer. There are cases where the seller can't trust the buyer and the authorities that are supposed to be arbitrating disputes can't be bothered doing their job because it's too hard. That's where crypto's non-reversibility is useful.

So you favor a kind of libertarian capitalism where the problems caused by businesses are the responsibility of people suffering from them? If you don't like being addicted to heroin, don't buy heroin?

Since you asked, to be honest, I don't believe you know what you're trying to say and are just repeating an argument you've heard before and didn't think critically about. But I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if I can learn some deeper idea you may have had.

That's called bigotry. And yes, it was a personal attack.

Conservation absolutely is nothing to do with care and empathy for non-human life. The proof is that one of the main tools of conservationists is mechanical and chemical killing machines to help them kill and even exterminate all the non-human life that they deem unworthy. Please don't confuse caring about life with caring about the environment. The two feelings are in direct conflict.

No. You've been indoctrinated to believe that environmentalism is like a religion so that you're a bad person for being an infidel and must not question the flimsy claims that the authorities make.

This seems to the basic understanding most people have. At school, they teach you about food webs and how breaking one link can ruin everything. That's an enticing idea but is it really true? I'm sure there have been some known cases or it wouldn't be in the text books, but is it common enough to get worried about every obscure species?